NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam4143OpenMs. Joy Binkley, MJB Windshield Repair, 3765 South Acoma, Englewood, CO 80110; Ms. Joy Binkley MJB Windshield Repair 3765 South Acoma Englewood CO 80110; Dear Ms. Binkley: Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1986, concerning the applicatio of our regulations to a product your company uses. The product, which is called the Novus method of windshield repair, is used to fill in breaks in vehicle windshields with a liquid resin. You explained that several companies in your area have asked whether the U.S. Department of Transportation has approved the use of the Novus product. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is th agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation which has been delegated the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials used in vehicles. Standard No. 205 does not contain performance requirements for repair kits, such as the Novus method, which are used to repair broken glazing. However, use of such a material or process in a new windshield which requires repair, for example, as a result of damage sustained in shipment, would be affected by Standard No. 205. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. If a windshield is repaired prior to the new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our regulation on certification (Part 567). As an alterer, the person must certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205.; In the case of a used vehicle, use of a windshield repair kit coul potentially be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In discussing the applicability of section 108(a)(2)(A) to the repair of windows in used vehicles, NHTSA has said that the prohibitions of that section do not apply to use of a product or process used in the repair of a windshield which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the windshield, and not any subsequent action by a person repairing the damaged window in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the glazing with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use.; The manufacturer of the windshield repair kit is considered manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, it is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3686OpenMr. J. N. Uranga, Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Box 3005, Columbus, IN 47201; Mr. J. N. Uranga Cummins Engine Company Inc. Box 3005 Columbus IN 47201; Dear Mr. Uranga: This is in further response to your January 28, 1983, letter in whic you asked about the defect reporting requirements in Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*. We responded by letter to you on March 24 indicating that as an original equipment manufacturer you might have some reporting responsibilities if a component of your original equipment was found to be defective.; In a conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff, you have indicate that you manufacture the engine of a certain vehicle and another manufacturer produces the fan. Both pieces of equipment are then sent to the vehicle manufacturer for assembly with the vehicle. In this instance, you ask whether you would have reporting responsibilities if the fan were determined to be defective. The answer to your question is no.; In the situation that you pose, you do not install the fan on you equipment nor does the fan ever come within your control. Therefore, you would not have responsibility for that part. The fan manufacturer and the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for any defects in that equipment. In instances where you might install a fan on your equipment prior to sale to the vehicle manufacturer, you might have reporting responsibilities if a defect is discovered in that part, since the part would be a component of the overall engine that you supplied to the vehicle manufacturer.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1341OpenMr. Samuel W. Caverlee, Wilkinson, Carmody & Peatross, Seventeenth Floor Beck Building, Shreveport, LA 71166; Mr. Samuel W. Caverlee Wilkinson Carmody & Peatross Seventeenth Floor Beck Building Shreveport LA 71166; Dear Mr. Caverlee: This is in reply to your letter of November 8, 1973, requestin information on the applicability of NHTSA safety standards and regulations to a company which manufactures for its own use special truck bodies and transfers truck bodies from one chassis-cab to another.; Truck bodies are items of motor vehicle equipment under the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations and are presently not subject to safety standards or regulations except insofar as they become part of a completed vehicle (49 CFR S 568.3). In such cases the installer of the truck body is considered a manufacturer of the vehicle, and if he is its final-stage manufacturer, he will be responsible for the conformity and certification of conformity of the vehicle (49 CFR Parts 567, 568, 15 U.S.C. 1403) to all applicable safety standards.; The NHTSA applies this rule even when the vehicle is complete (manufactured) by a company (or person) for its own use. This is because the use of these vehicles involves their introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce, and is thus within 15 U.S.C. SS 1397(a)(1), 1398, and 1399. Use restricted to one State does not remove a vehicle from these requirements. However, a subsequent sale by the user-manufacturer does fall within section 1397(b)(1) as long as the manufacturer's use has been *bona fide*.; The agency has taken the position that the standards and regulation apply when the installation of truck bodies and other completive measures are undertaken with new chassis. When the installation or transfer of a truck body (including a new truck body) is to a used chassis, the NHTSA considers the vehicle to be a used vehicle under section 1397(b)(1) and the standards and regulations do not apply.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5302OpenMichael J. Siris, Esq. Attorney at Law 1615 Northern Boulevard Manhasset, NY 11030; Michael J. Siris Esq. Attorney at Law 1615 Northern Boulevard Manhasset NY 11030; "Dear Mr. Siris: This responds to your letter of December 8, 1993 following a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff. Your letter requested 'confirmation that a manufacturer's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer.' You also asked whether there might be any standards other than Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which might apply to a '1987 Ford vehicle which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column.' Section 108(k) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(k)) states: Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this title does not exempt any person from any liability under common law. Thus, you are correct that a vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer from liability under other causes of action. With regard to your second question, S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states that, with certain exceptions,: the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a 'park' position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. However, as explained in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, this requirement was added to Standard No. 114 in 1991 and was effective September 1, 1992. There was no Federal standard which prohibited a 1987 vehicle from having an automatic transmission which could be shifted when the key was removed. I am also unaware of any other standard or regulation containing such a requirement. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0100OpenCharles S. Quarles Esq., Messrs. Quarles, Herriott, Clemons, Teschner & Noelke, 411 East Mason Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202; Charles S. Quarles Esq. Messrs. Quarles Herriott Clemons Teschner & Noelke 411 East Mason Street Milwaukee WI 53202; Dear Mr. Quarles: This is in reply to your letter of July 23 to the attention of th Federal Highway Administrator enclosing product literature on the 'Model 16' and 'Cruiser' manufactured by your client, the M-B Company. You have asked what Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to these vehicles.; Since the Model 16 line striper is 'driven...by mechanical power' it i a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. However, it does not fall into any of the vehicle types defined thus far, to which standards are applicable, and consequently there are no standards applicable to it at this time.; Section 255.3(b), quoted by you, defines a 'truck' as 'a motor vehicl with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' The definition thus excludes all trailers, but would include the Cruiser which transports special purpose equipment necessary for street sweeping. Therefore, the Cruiser must conform to all Federal standards applicable to trucks.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Director |
|
ID: aiam4840OpenThe Honorable Bill McCollum U.S. House of Representatives 1801 Lee Road, Suite 301 Winter Park, FL 32789; The Honorable Bill McCollum U.S. House of Representatives 1801 Lee Road Suite 301 Winter Park FL 32789; "Dear Mr. McCollum: Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Perry Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner requested a written interpretation about whether casings imported into this country are required to have the 'DOT number.' A 'casing' means a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading. As explained more fully below, casings for retreaded passenger car tires must have the DOT symbol, but casings for tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars (referred to as 'truck tires' in this letter) are not required to have the DOT symbol. At the outset, I note that Mr. Faulkner's letter stated that the 'DOT number' on a tire indicates that the Federal excise tax has been paid. That statement is inaccurate. The 'DOT number' on a tire only represents the manufacturer's or retreader's certification of compliance with this agency's standards and regulations. If Mr. Faulkner wants further information about Federal excise taxes on tires, he may wish to contact the Internal Revenue Service, since that agency administers the Federal excise taxes. Mr. Faulkner is mixing two different types of markings when he refers to a 'DOT number.' The first type of marking is the symbol 'DOT.' This marking by a tire manufacturer or retreader on a tire is a certification that the tire complies with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Federal safety standards applicable to tires include Standard No. 109 for new passenger car tires, Standard No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires, and Standard No. 119 for new truck tires. Standard No. 117 (the retreaded passenger car tire safety standard) includes a requirement that all passenger car tire casings to be retreaded must include the symbol 'DOT.' See S5.2.3(a). Therefore, it is illegal to sell or import into this country any passenger car tire casings that are not marked with the symbol 'DOT.' However, none of our Federal safety standards set forth requirements for retreaded truck tires. Since there is no standard for retreaded truck tires, there is no requirement that casings for retreaded truck tires be marked with the DOT symbol. I have enclosed a June 18, 1981 letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield that offers a more detailed discussion of this issue. The second type of marking to which Mr. Faulkner referred was the tire identification number specified in Part 574. This number identifies the manufacturer or retreader of the tire, along with the date of manufacture or retread and other attributes of the tire. A tire identification number is not required on any casing: Standard No. 117 does not require this marking on passenger car casings, and as explained above, there is no Standard for casings for truck tires. Please note, however, that Part 574 requires all finished retreads, including retreaded truck tires, to be marked with the retreader's identification number. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Jamie McLaughlin Fish Director, Intergovernmental Affairs Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2097OpenMr. Walter C. Robbins, Jr., Walt Robbins, Inc., 6121 Lincolnia Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; Mr. Walter C. Robbins Jr. Walt Robbins Inc. 6121 Lincolnia Road Alexandria Virginia 22312; Dear Mr. Robbins: This is in response to your letter of June 5, 1975, enclosing a copy o your patent for a tire described as a 'Radial, Bias Ply Tire' and requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*. The tire would be constructed with three full body plies: two bias plies (angle 35 degrees) and on radial ply (angle 90 degrees).; S4.3(g) of the standard requires permanent molding of the word 'radial into or onto both sidewalls if the tire is a radial ply tire and, by implication, prohibits the use of the word 'radial' if the tire is not a radial ply tire. In S3., 'radial ply tire' is defined as:; >>>a pneumatic tire in which the ply cords which extend to the bead are laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread.<<<; The tire you have described is not within the scope of this definitio because it includes ply cords extending to the beads which are not laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread. Therefore, the word 'radial' must not appear on either sidewall.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0550OpenMr. William S. Magenau, President, Chespeake Marine Products, Route 256, Deale, MD 20751; Mr. William S. Magenau President Chespeake Marine Products Route 256 Deale MD 20751; Dear Mr. Magenau: In your letter of September 21, 1972, you ask, 'are there any 'partia built' certification standards which would govern our operation as a boat trailer distributor?'; I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, and Part 568 *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, for your review as to their applicability to your operations. They apply to manufacturers who initiate or complete the manufacture of motor vehicles. They do not, however, impose an obligation upon a distributor of boat trailers who does not alter the vehicles he receives from a manufacture in a manner that affects compliance with applicable standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0045OpenMr. John A. Diehl, The Armstrong Rubber Company, 475 Elm Street, West Haven, Connecticut 06516; Mr. John A. Diehl The Armstrong Rubber Company 475 Elm Street West Haven Connecticut 06516; Dear Mr. Diehl: #In our telephone conversation of January 8, 1968, an your letter of January 9, 1968, your requested: #>>>'...an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on *one sidewall*, except the basic label. (Basic Label Information - DOT-153) It is also our feeling that the labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards.'<<< #This letter confirms my statement in our telephone conversation that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 may be met if the information required in S4.3 of this standard is molded on one or both sidewalls of the tire in lieu of a label until August 1, 1968, after which this information is required on each sidewall. #Sincerely, Roger H. Compton, Director, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2078OpenMr. Don W. Wieriman, Staff Engineer, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Don W. Wieriman Staff Engineer Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Wieriman: This is in reply to your letter of August 26, 1975, to Dr. Gregor requesting our review of TTMA's revised Recommended Practice No. 9-75 - Lighting Devices for trailers and Container Chassis.; We note that the text, charts and drawings submitted with your lette of June 17, 1975, have been revised in accord with our recommendations of July 15, 1975. Your revised RP No. 9-75 does, therefore, accurately reflect the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Again, your efforts in promoting compliance with the requirements o Standard No. 108 are greatly appreciated.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.